On 1 October, in Brussels Belgium, the European Commission had its second working session on the above subject. The objective is to direct EC funding efficiently, creating a major new European industry. The terminology is meant to embrace both inorganic and organic solutions for the new electronics but it is those interested in organic solutions that attend in large numbers, do the work and set the agenda, so it is little wonder that the resulting EC projects tend to have the prefix "Poly" and essentially back the organic option, with inputs sought from The Plastic Electronics Foundation and The Organic Electronics Association. This is technology push but with an increasing recognition that some market pull would be helpful.
At the first organic and large area electronics stakeholder meeting, 3 working groups were created:
Working group 1 (WG1) focuses on "collaboration amongst relevant players in the field. This cooperation covers public funding (coordination and dissemination of public funding schemes) as well as collaboration among industry and RTD centres, including both IPR issues on innovation (open innovation model vs. pharmacy IPR paradigm) and RTD facilities sharing and access for SME's." The chairman of this WG1 is Dr. Herman Schoo from TNO in the Netherlands.
Working group 2 (WG2) concentrates on market. Major goals of this working group will be a "technology roadmap and user-suppliers clubs." The chairmen of this WG2 are Mr. Wolfgang Mildner of Poly IC and Dr. Klaus Hecker from the Organic Electronics Association (OE-A).
Working group 3 (WG3) deals with "the new funding instruments to promote the creation of European start-ups as well as to help them to overcome the "death valley". Issues addressed by this working group are "best practices and lessons learned plus advice on exiting funding schemes and incentives." The chairman of this WG3 is Prof. Harri Kopola from VTT Finland and the vice-chairman Mr. Ed van den Kieboom from Plastic Electronic Foundation (PEF) in the Netherlands.
Inevitably, the recommendations of those attending - about 50 invited academics and industrialists from Poland to Italy and including IDTechEx - were conflicting. With three parallel sessions for some of the time, it is only possible to touch on some aspects in this article.
Most appeared to believe that the industrial situation is suboptimal at present in Europe. There is some evidence of too few startups despite the world's broadest R&D base in the new electronics being in Europe. It involves transnational collaboration at a level not seen elsewhere in the world.
However, few of the giant companies of Europe are participating, let alone increasing their effort in the field, though the recent major entry of Henkel and Solvay is welcome. Overall then, Europe may need to become better at commercialization and suggestions for this included encouraging, training and assisting those seeking to start companies, more venture capital on longer timescales and easier access to EC money, though the EC terms of reference make this difficult to achieve. Craig Cruickshank of Cintelliq UK suggested doing the simple things such as printed indicator lamps first. Professor Ecclestone agreed with Ed van den Kieboom that selection of the chief executive is the most critical decision for a startup and he added that the typical PhD is rarely the right sort of person. A template could help.
Although market roadmaps cannot plan for flashes of brilliance like the design of an i-Pod™, they are needed to guide the development programs. There was a suggestion that designers and artists be encouraged to be more involved in European startups in the new electronics. Raising funds for startups was described as varying greatly in difficulty between the different countries of Europe and overall inferior to the USA. The work continues and it will guide the criteria for investing EC funds over the coming years.
Contact p.harrop@idtechex.com for more or attend Printed Electronics USA.
